Great Judgments Of The European Court Of Justice

Presents a new approach to prominent judgments of the European Court of Justice drawing on the writings of Judge Robert Lecourt.

Whereas individual Member State governments occasionally complain about judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union, especially when those judgments curtail that state's policy autonomy in a sensitive domain, the collectivity of the Member State governments have agreed, in each treaty revision so far, to confirm and extend the far-reaching powers which the Court of Justice possesses for enforcing EU law. The explanation of the paradox can only be that, deep down, the Member States of the EU remain convinced that an effective Court of Justice with strong enforcement powers is one of the salient features of European Union law which have stood the test of time, and feel no inclination to clip the wings of that Court for fear that this would affect the effectiveness of the European integration process. Nevertheless, the grumblings about single judgments, or about the consistency and direction of the Court in particular policy fields, have never ceased, and indeed have become more audible in recent years. This book deals with the perception that the Court of Justice, quite often, does not leave sufficient autonomy to the Member States in developing their own legal and policy choices in areas where European and national competences overlap.

Whereas individual Member State governments of the European Union occasionally complain about judgments of the European Court of Justice (ECJ), especially when those judgments curtail that State's policy autonomy in a sensitive domain, the collectivity of the Member State governments have agreed in each treaty revision so far to confirm and extend the far-reaching powers which the ECJ possesses for enforcing EU law. The explanation of the paradox can only be that, deep down, the Member States of the EU remain convinced that an effective ECJ with strong enforcement powers is one of the salient features of EU law which have stood the test of time and feel no inclination to clip the wings of the ECJ for fear that this would affect the effectiveness of the European integration process. Nevertheless, the grumblings about single judgments, or about the consistency and direction of the ECJ in particular policy fields, have never ceased and indeed have become more audible in recent years. This book - now available in paperback - deals with the perception that the ECJ quite often does not leave sufficient autonomy to the Member States in developing their own legal and policy choices in areas where European and national competences overlap.

Exploring the external impact of the Court of Justice of the European Union, this book delves into the influence its judgments have outside EU borders and particularly on the legal systems of countries in the European neighbourhood. A team of scholars from non-EU countries provided analysis and insight into this project.

Delays in implementing the Court’s judgments, lack of political will in certain states parties, attempts to discredit the Court... In ratifying the European Convention on Human Rights, the signatory states accept the Court’s jurisdiction and authority and “undertake to abide by the final judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties” (Article 46 of the Convention). While certain member states have made real progress in implementing the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, some others face serious structural and political problems forming real “pockets of resistance” that delay or prevent the execution of judgments. The Committee of Ministers is still supervising the execution of some 10 000 judgments, although they are not all at the same stage of implementation. This publication highlights the difficulties in implementing certain judgments encountered in the 10 countries which have the highest number of non-implemented judgments against them (Italy, the Russian Federation, Turkey, Ukraine, Romania, Hungary, Greece, Bulgaria, the Republic of Moldova and Poland). It also analyses judgments whose execution raises complex political issues.

"Courts are context-conscious. They solve legal disputes with societal impact in mind, using interpretive tools and procedural means. This book develops concepts and methods for a systematic and legally informative analysis of this complex process. The evidence delivered prompts a conversation about the authority courts have to change the law. The analysis focuses on the European Court of Justice and its free movement case law. The framework and theory, however, are relevant to courts and case law everywhere. This is a compelling and intriguing examination of the ECJ and its shaping of a key tenet of EU law"--

Marc Jacob analyses in depth the most important justificatory and decision-making tool of one of the world's most powerful courts.

This book analyses the European Court of Justice's power from a political-science perspective. It argues that this power can be assessed through studying the policy implications of there being a supranational constitution that was drafted as an international treaty. An international treaty contains a set of policy goals for future cooperation. Direct effect and supremacy give constitutional status to these policy goals, allowing the Court to develop the Treaty's implications for policymaking at the European and the member-state levels. By focusing on the four freedoms (of goods, services, persons, and capital) and citizenship rights, the book analyses the implications of case law for policymaking in different case studies. It shows how major EU legislation (for instance, the Services and Citizenship Directives) are significantly influenced by case law and how controversial policies, such as EU citizens' access to tax-financed social benefits, are closely linked to the Court.